Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AT ruled that the attachment of property under Section 5 of PMLA is illegal and unsustainable. The Enforcement Directorate failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements for property retention, specifically under Sections 17(4) and 20. The statutory conditions for attachment were not met, as the property was already in ED's custody, thereby negating the legal prerequisites of possession by a person and potential risk of concealment or transfer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, effectively invalidating the property attachment.
AT ruled that the attachment of property under Section 5 of PMLA is illegal and unsustainable. The Enforcement Directorate failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements for property retention, specifically under Sections 17(4) and 20. The statutory conditions for attachment were not met, as the property was already in ED's custody, thereby negating the legal prerequisites of possession by a person and potential risk of concealment or transfer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, effectively invalidating the property attachment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
